Posts

Witness Statements for Use in IP Proceedings

Image
  Jane Lambert Since 6 April 2021 Practice Direction 57AC Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts  has regulated the form and content of witness statements for use in trials in the Business and Property Courts.  In  Greencastle MM LLP v Payne and other s [2022] EWHC 438 (IPEC) (13 Jan 2022), Mr Justice Fancourt withdrew permission for the service of the claimant's witness statements for a trial that was due to come on in less than a month's time on the ground that they failed to comply with the Practice Direction.   In that case, there was time to serve a replacement witness statement and his lordship gave the claimant a week to do that but the courts have power to impose a wide range of sanctions including striking out non-compliant statements. I discussed that case and PD57AC in Preparing Witness Statements for Use in Trials in IP Actions: Greencastle v Payne   on 7 May 2022.   I made clear in that article that PD57AC does not ap

Preparing Witness Statements for Use in Trials in IP Actions: Greencastle v Payne

Image
Author Francis Carruthers Gould  Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Fancourt)  Greencastle MM LLP v Payne and others   [2022] EWHC 438  (13 Jan 2022) For many years witnesses in civil proceedings in England and Wales have delivered their  evidence in chief  in writing. That shortens trials and enables parties to know the case they have to meet at an early stage but it has given rise to concerns that factual witness statements are often ineffective in performing their core function of achieving best evidence at proportionate cost. Those concerns were expressed at a meeting of the Commercial Court Users’ Committee in March 2018.  A working group was set up consisting of: Mr Justice Popplewell (Commercial Court) (Chair)  Mr Justice Andrew Baker (Commercial Court)  Mr Justice Fancourt (Chancery Division)  Mr Justice Waksman (Commercial Court and Technology and Construction Court, and formerly Circuit Commercial Court)  Andrew George QC (Blackstone Chambers)

FRAND - The InterDigital v Lenovo Litigation

Image
By Nachoman-au - A digital photograph taken by myself., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=589068   Jane Lambert Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others (Trial B) [2022] EWHC 10 (Pat) (6 Jan 2022) Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 3401 (Pat) (16 Dec 2021) Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 3192 (Pat) (26 Nov 2021) Interdigital Technology Corporation and another v Lenovo Group Ld Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2152 (Pat) (29 July 2021) Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 89 (Pat) (19 Jan 2021) Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) summarized this litigation in para [1] of the transcript in  Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 89 (Pat) (19 Jan 2021) which was the first judgment in this litigation: "InterDigital

FRAND - Nokia Technologies v Oneplus Technology

Image
Supreme People's Court of the Peoples' Republic of China Author ONUnicorn   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia   Common   J ane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) This was an application to HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the claimants' patent portfolio on the basis that China was the more appropriate forum.  Alternatively, a stay of the whole action or at least the determination of the licence terms was sought on case management grounds.        The applicants contended that the circumstances that had led to the Supreme Court's decision in